Talk:Ruth Ellis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright violation

I found copyright violations going back to the first revision. A few copied sentances, probably an accident. Double checked www.crimelibrary.com with the wayback machine. The article is at Ruth Ellis/Copyvio until it can be deleted and a new stub has been started.--Duk 17:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Took a second look and tried to delete just the copied material, but kept comming up with more and more, better to re-write.--Duk 20:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Abolition of death penalty

Death penalty was only abolished for *murder* in the UK in 1965. After that it was still possible in law to be hanged for treason, although nobody ever actually *was* executed for treason in the UK after '65. Death penalty only *completely* abolished in law in the UK in 1998. Martyn Smith 18:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

recent revisions - arthritis/gun?

What is the relevance of arthritis in one finger? The UK hanged one-armed and one-legged men... What are you trying to say?

What is the relevance of the force required to fire the gun? - other than is tends even more to show premeditation and determination. These revisions seem to have been thrown in randomly, without much thought, disrupting the narrative, to no obvious purpose.

Why the slur on the Defence counsel? Stevenson did everything he could - albeit, not much - with the available evidence and the stance determindly taken by the Defendant. The Court of Appeal verdict in 2003 very carefully examined the case, and concluded there was no reason to alter the verdict. Neither the law, the lawyers or the judge was at fault. Ellis was at fault, and if you want to be sentimental, the Home Secretary could have reprieved her if he'd thought it was in the public interest. Please review these revisions objectively RodCrosby 00:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have written a carefully considered reply to your remarks. Unfortunately I must have clicked on the wrong icon and lost the lot.I will return to this later.

You are quite clearly an authority on the case of Ruth Ellis, by the sounds of it you were at the trial in 1955 and at the Appeal. I will not become involved in an argument with someone who is using bullying tactics and who is intent on spinning and repeating the 50 year-old story about Ruth Ellis, which many people now believe was a put up job. What a pity that, in this instance, Wikipedia is governed by bullies. Josephine Richmond

Josephine, please don't be like that. I have not reverted your changes, merely drawn your attention to them here on the talk page. It just seems to me that these revisions disrupt the narrative flow, and seem to be insinuating something without saying it. Either she shouldn't have been hanged because she suffered mild arthritis, or are you actually implying she did not commit the crime at all? (!) I note the use of the word "allegedly." Have you read her sister's recent book? She has some interesting theories, but none of it is backed-up by a shred of evidence. You could try moving your revisions into a separate section, entitled "Theories" and citing Mrs Jakubait's book. Best Wishes RodCrosby 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion that they disrupt the flow. I think they add extra information which has not been aired publicly before. I should say, not aired in the British press. And why hasn't it?Yes I have read Muriel Jakubait's book. Very interesting you should say that the ideas expressed in it are theories. Are you personally trying to suppress the information in it coming out? Perhaps I will write an article based on fact, when I discover the system for so-doing in Wikipedia (you need a Phd to work it out). I certainly won't call it a theory like you suggest. The 50 year-old story that has been spun and repeated by the British establishment is certainly based on fantasy.

That's all for now - I am saying Ruth's arthritic hand was important evidence that was not taken into account at the trial, along with other important and relevant details, and should have been.

Josephine Richmond

• Josephine, I have moved your additions to a section entitled Recently released information (for that is what you state them to be.) It would be best if you could find a link to a source for them. If you don't know how to create a citation just post the url here and I will do it. Hope this is satisfactory. It is interesting information you have discovered, but it is best for the reader to weigh it up themselves as to what bearing it has on the culpability of Mrs. Ellis. I have removed your comment about the Defence not using all the evidence, as I feel that is an unsupportable Point of View. At the appeal in 2003, the long-dead Mrs. Ellis had a very capable counsel in Michael Mansfield QC - reknowned for taking on the Establishment. He limited his submissions to realistic aspects of the case, and points of law. He did not indulge in theories, but had there been any credible alternatives to the accepted facts, he would no doubt have explored them. Best Wishes RodCrosby 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• • On the question of whether Ellis actually killed Blakely (!), I can only say this:- I cannot conceive of any person (let alone a woman and a mother), in the face of certain death within a matter of hours, reconciled to that death, and reconciled to her spiritual beliefs (the Catholic faith), taking pen to paper to write to Blakely's mother with a heartfelt apology...unless she truly acknowledged her guilt. RodCrosby 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Josephine 09:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Thank you for titling the 'Recently Released Information'and also for instructions re sources etc.Very helpful. Regarding your 2nd paragraph 18.54, 22 March 07 - I will reply to it later. User: Josephine RichmondJosephine 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 23.3.2007

Josephine 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Re your notes 23.3.07 "in the face of certain death within a matter of hours....taking pen to paper to write to Blakely's mother with a heartfelt apology" : I do have to correct this as it could be misleading to readers. Ruth Ellis's letter to Mrs Cook, to which you refer, was actually dated 12.4.55, just 2 days after the shooting of Blakely. It was not sent to Mrs Cook within a few hours of Ruth's death. The letter is referred to in a document in the police file at The National Archive, released in 2006. On page 49 it states, "The same day, 20th April, a letter and telegram were received by registered post at the Station from the solicitor of the Blakely family...The letter written on Prison notepaper by RUTH ELLIS was addressed to Mrs A Cook......In this letter she expresses regret for causing the death of David and refers to the possible outcome resulting in her being hanged....No enquiry has yet been made to ascertain particulars of the person who can speak of receiving this letter. It is addressed to Mrs Cook, but this lady is old and is very ill following the death of her son..." Josephine 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Josephine Richmond

• Ok, that's interesting, Josephine. Many sources claim a letter was written on the morning of the execution. One was certainly written to Leon Simmons in which Ruth Ellis alludes to her "promise" to Mrs Cook. What was the promise? RodCrosby 14:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rod -I have inserted details about Anthony Eden at the time of the hanging but have probably clicked the wrong button and included my name by mistake. Josephine 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Josephine

Josephine 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Rod, I am returning to your comment 01.46, 23rd March 2007 regarding Ruth's religious beliefs: "and reconciled to her spiritual beliefs (the Catholic faith)". It is quite untrue that Ruth Ellis was a Roman Catholic. My source: In the HOSPITAL CASE PAPER released in 2006 at The National Archive, dated 11.4.1955, it states quite clearly on her admission form into Holloway prison hospital that she was C of E. This is an important fact and I believe should be inserted in the Biography section, as for the last 52 years authors for their own reasons have stated she was a Catholic.Josephine 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Josephine Charlton

• Josephine, I admire your tenacity, but many sources state she was raised as a Catholic and was attended by a Catholic priest at the execution. The fact that the hospital recorded her as CofE is, of itself, neither here nor there. English officialdom, the Army, prison, hospitals, etc. routinely (certainly until recently) assign persons to CofE if they are non-committal when asked their religion. It was certainly the case even if the answer was "none", the response would be "We'll better put you down as CofE, then..." Ruth may have just been coy, or at that time in her life had no religion. It does not preclude the fact that, later, she rejoined the Catholic faith. You have to weigh up one routine document with several other sources. By the way, when editing the article page (as opposed to this one, the Talk page) please do not insert the tildes "~". Your identity will be automatically recorded. Also it helps on the Talk page if you can begin a response with a "*", so it is indented under the previous comment. Best Wishes RodCrosby 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rod - No time to reply in full now but having spoken to Ruth's sister about this some years ago, she confirmed that neither she nor Ruth was brought up as a Catholic.It looks as though the many sources were, for their own reasons, putting out misinformation.The sources also state that Ruth went to a Catholic Sunday school - also incorrect.It was C of E. The Most Reverend Joost de Blank, C of E Bishop of Stepney, attended her during her last days in the condemned cell. This was widely documented in church newspapers at the timeJosephine 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)josephine

• Rod, I think that comments such as "We'll better put you down as C of E" and "It does not preclude the fact that, later, she rejoined the Catholic faith" and "Ruth may have just been coy" are, in your words, neither here nor there.They are not proof that she was not C of E, nor proof that she was R.C. Perhaps you could share your first hand evidence and "many" sources regarding Ruth Ellis's Catholicism. It would be interesting for readers.I believe I am right in saying there are no files currently at The National Archive that give details of Ruth ever being visited by a Roman Catholic priest.One could assume that authors of biographies about Ruth ellis, have used some artistic licence for their own reasons. The revereend gentleman who sat with Ruth immediately prior to her stepping out of the condemned cell to the gallows was the prison chaplain whose name slips my mind at the moment.Best WishesJosephine 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Josephine

• Have added a note in biography about Rev John Williams, the Church of England chaplain responsible for Ruth's pastoral care in HollowayJosephine 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Charlton1 16:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)It is clear from this Wikipedia article that most of its contributors are interested only in the continuation of the fairy story about Ruth Ellis, that has been based on misinformation and spun to the public for the last 52 years. Perhaps those contributors should study, carefully, those stories that have been published in newspapers and books over the years, which may be in line with Wikipedia guidelines, but now, with the benefit of new, more accurate, information that has been kept secret for nearly 50 years, are not worth the paper they are written on. I do not find the statement about 'Ms Ellis's supporters' very helpful. It is not objective. In fact it is patronising, out of place and 'below the belt.' I could have replied here in the same subjective manner but I will not lower myself. I will merely surmise that someone is obviously pulling someone's strings. Ruth Ellis's sister's published book spells out, very clearly, the latest findings about the last woman to be hanged. Charlton1 17:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Extracts of Ms Jakubait's book, dealing with all the points that have now been removed from the Wikipedia site, were published in a three-page article in the Daily Mail, pages 26 - 28, on Wednesday July 6th 2005.

—Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The information has been removed but it's still accessible in the page history - let me know if you want any help getting at it, either to review or to restore with citations. You can certainly publish material that is properly sourced. I haven't got access to the Daily Mail article but information published in a national newspaper probably qualifies for some mention. A book by the sister of Ruth Ellis may be regarded as a primary source. Please have a look at WP:OR and also (though I'm not saying this material necessarilly qualifies) have a look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I expected therefore to get a transcript of the Daily Mail article and paste approximately 3000 words on this page? Please advise. You state that it (Daily Mail article)may qualify for some mention. What exactly do you mean? Why would this be more acceptable in Wikipedia Fringe Theories whereas the main bulk of the Ruth Ellis page, as it stands using out of date information, is acceptable? I don't understand. Perhaps this could be made clear.I would like help restoring my contribution to the main page please and help in applying citations. Thank You.Charlton1 22:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. No, you certainly don't have to type the whole Daily Mail article out. Just try to summarise the relevant bits in Wikipedia, explaining the facts as they are given and what conclusions the Daily Mail drew. Be careful not to appear to draw your own conclusions. Generally secondary sources are preferable to primary ones in Wikipedia; Ruth Ellis's sister may not be very independent so probably isn't someone who should be referenced for anything other than uncontroversial statements of fact.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say some information is out of date. Not everything need be referenced but more controversial bits nearly always are. Nobody is going to argue about the date Ruth Ellis died, for example, so a source is not important. An assertion that Ruth Ellis may be innocent (and whether it's true or not is irrelevant) contradicts mainstream published opinion and needs very careful sourcing.

Fringe theories are ideas that lack common acceptance and deserve little, if any, mention on Wikipedia. When I said these arguments about Ruth Ellis's innocence didn't necessarilly qualify, I was suggesting they may be more than just a fringe theory. I think it might still be an idea to read about fringe theories because the removed paragraphs do look like a fringe theory.

If you have the Daily Mail article, you could find out if it is also available on the internet and point out where on this page so that everyone can look: to try to find it pick a sentence and type it into Google, enclosing it in speech marks - this will search for an exact phrase.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to stop you publising this. As I can't see the the Daily Mail article, or the book, I can't really bring the article up to standard. As a guide, an acceptable paragraph might read:

"The sister of Ruth Ellis, name, has questioned the safety of Miss Ellis's conviction, claiming her sister would have been unable to fire the gun that killed David Blakely. Sections of her book, name, reproduced in the Daily Mail on 6 July 2005, have pointed to information stored at the National Archives at Kew, detailing the results of rheumatic fever contracted as a teenager that destroyed many of the bones in Miss Ellis's left hand. According to Name's book, Miss Ellis would have been unable to fire the six cartridges that killed Mr Blakely from a gun that had heavy 10lb trigger. Name's book criticises the fact that this information was never brought to the attention of the jury."

--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently released information

I've removed this section for now. It seems to be extensive original research, advancing arguments that have never been published. It can be reinserted when a source can be provided. The locations of files at the National Archives are no good; what is really needed is a press story that makes the arguments that are made here. While I sympathise with Ms Ellis's supporters, Wikipedia just isn't the right place for publicising new ideas.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also take note of this, from WP:NOT:

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etcetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge...

Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information.

--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Charlton1 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)The Church Times published a piece about Joost de Blank's visit to Ruth Ellis. Perhaps the link could be added at the end of 'Trial and Execution' and before 'Legacy'. Thank you. http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=12711 I will work on the previous suggestions soon.

Son's name

Is it Andre or Clare Andrea? Different places on the net say different things. The second however would be pretty weird... Malick78 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is Andre Clare McCallum. "She [Ruth Ellis] became pregnant, giving birth to his child Andre Clare McCallum in September 1944."RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE by Muriel Jakubait and Monica Weller.Charlton1 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, let's amend it to reflect that. Why do so many websites get it wrong though? And do you have any idea why his middle name is 'Clare'? It's unusual. (PS - I reformatted your comment - it reads better if the tilds are put at the end of your text. Hope you don't mind:)) ) Malick78 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Andre's father's name was Clare Andrea McCallum, so I guess he and Ruth decided to reverse his name for their son.They may sound rather feminine names here but in Canada they obviously are masculine.Charlton1 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 'Why do so many websites get it wrong?' I suspect they have not read the true account of events and family history in RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFECharlton1 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlton1 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)LADY GODIVA RIDES AGAIN - I have added detail about Diana Dors in section about this film.

PARDON CAMPAIGN - I have added a section which I hope is acceptable re information in RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE and confirmed in Daily Mail, 6th July 2005.Charlton1 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LEGACY Have added a paragraph about Mr Bickford's confession to Scotland Yard in the 1970s regarding the lies Ruth Ellis told at her trial - reference 'RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE' and http://copperknob.wordpress.com User:Charlton1|Charlton1]] (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mishcon and Simmons visit to Ruth Ellis on 12th July 1955 - Citation http://copperknob.wordpress.com213.122.23.151 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but any "source" that reads as follows...

It sounded as if she had previously rehearsed her statement. It was word perfect. At the beginning of her performance, which she began without being asked saying, “It all started about two years ago when I met David Blakely at the Little Club, Knightsbridge,” Superintendent Crawford had to stop her and ask “Would you like this to be written down?”

Ruth had clearly been brainwashed.

doesn't belong in Wikipedia. "True Detective Magazine" is not a reliable source. RodCrosby (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Montgomery Hyde question

I've copyedited this section partly to compress it but also to avoid giving a misleading impression. The actual publication of the report of the question was in a publication known as the House of Commons "Official Report of Debates" but unofficially known as "Hansard". It was in a section called "Oral Questions" because that was what the House of Commons was doing at the time; the publication was not called "Oral Questions". Hansard is organised not by pages but by columns (there are two columns on each page). When Hansard is cited it is the date on which the debates took place which is given, rather than the date on which someone could buy a copy (which would of course be the following day). Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

-LADY GODIVA RIDES AGAIN section- I have added extra information about the film 'Lady Godiva Rides Again' in which Ruth Ellis and her friends had small roles. And have given citations on my Talk Page that include Diana Dors' book 'Dors by Diana', Ruth Ellis My Sister's Secret Life and copperknob.wordpress.com. Charlton1 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlton1 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 

_______________________________________________________________ Have added a new section which I hope is OK: Investigating Officers in the Case. Citation: The Times (1959) and Ruth Ellis My Sister's Secret Life (2005) Charlton1 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Have added extra comments and citations regarding the relevance of Ruth Ellis's friends' roles in Lady Godiva Rides Againin my Talk Page. And made further comments in the debate about the Bishop of Stepney. Recently published information, which has been thoroughly researched and which challenges previously published stories, is just as relevant in Wikipedia's Ruth Ellis story and should form part of the ongoing debate. Charlton1 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Charlton1, we all have to learn to walk before we can run, and to that end might I give you some friendly advice?

i) please make regular use of the preview button before saving your changes, to help you avoid formatting errors. If it looks wrong, tweak your text in the edit window, and preview again until it looks OK. Then save...

ii) please note that discussions about the Ellis page usually belong here, and not on users talk pages, or on your own page.

iii) please acquaint yourself with the styles of citation WP:CITE, in particular the sub-section "How to present citations"

iv) please when adding information, try to place it in its proper context or notability. e.g. what is the relevance of a policeman being demoted years later? Just throwing it in as a bald statement can be unhelpful and confusing. If the Bishop of Stepney made a mistake in his understanding of the execution protocol, isn't it important to make that clear to the reader, or to consider whether it is worth mentioning it at all. It might be more appropriate on a page about the life of the Bishop of Stepney, rather than on the Ellis page. Take a look at WP:NOTE

v) please take a long hard look about what Wikipedia is about. WP:OR, WP:NOT. Like it or not, these are the broad rules, and they are not going to change anytime soon. For example Wikipedia is not a forum for what you describe as "ongoing debate."

vi) please take a careful look at WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, and consider objectively whether sources like Muriel Jakubait's book or True Detective Magazine meet the criteria. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" is a good rule of thumb for an encyclopedia, don't you think? Mrs. Jakubait is Ruth Ellis's sister, and has run a long and passionate campaign to overturn what she perceves as an injustice to her sister. She may or may not be correct in her view, and she has every right to pursue her campaign. However, is she likely to be objective and balanced in her approach to the facts, compared to another author who has no emotional connection to the case, no agenda, and no axe to grind? In particular see WP:CONFLICT and WP:NOTE ("Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.) If she has made wild assertions not corroborated anywhere else are they a proper subject for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Moreover it is not our job to attempt to corroborate them. Others must do that, and if and when they are corroborated, they may become proper subjects for inclusion here.

vii) please carry on editing (preferably within these guidelines)! RodCrosby (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you RodCrosby for your explanations. I will do my best in future to put things in the correct place and in the correct format and will use the Preview Button - thanks for that suggestion.

Specifically: You state the Bishop of Stepney made a mistake etc. I have not read anything that confirms that he made a mistake. I have read the parliamentary notes. Should one ask if it is possible that one or other of the two men in question was lying?

'Ongoing debate', I apologise for incorrect choice of phrase.

Muriel Jakubait is 88 years old, 85 at the time of the publication of her book which was compiled and researched by the ghost writer who would have had no 'axe to grind.' She would merely have been doing her job. I don't think, therefore, that your argument as to whether the book was balanced or objective in its approach is relevant.

Over the years, I have found, and probably you have too, that there are many sides to a story. Nothing is ever clear cut. It is quite plain that the original publications about the Ruth Ellis case, which date back to the 1960s, have, for one reason or another, omitted huge chunks about Ruth Ellis's life.

In order to gain a more balanced Wikipedia page, it is for that reason that I have included details about Ruth Ellis's connection with the film Lady Godiva Rides Again, and of Dr Stephen Ward's with the same film - an interesting snippet that has been overlooked for so long. Ruth Ellis was clearly in the same place at the same time as Stephen Ward, which is in itself fascinating and gives a broader view about this woman who most thought was just a prostitute, model, club hostess. 213.122.40.156 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RodCrosby - I should have responded to your "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" in an encyclopaedia - I would say that exceptional claims require honest sources. I do not necessarily believe that everything that was published in books about Ruth Ellis before Muriel Jakubait's book, were of the latter type of source. 213.122.40.156 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Have added to information about press and public interest in the case which I trust is OK. Charlton1 (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

copy and try editing this sample piece of code to reflect the Rhodes James source

<ref>Charmley, John (2006). ''The Princess and the Politicians'', p.60. Penguin Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0140289712.</ref>

and insert it immediately after the sentence about the cabinet. Depending on the context it may not be necessary to mention the actual source of the fact in the text itself. Use your own judgement. RodCrosby (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Right - I will give it a go. And please tell me if it's not correct. I appreciate the tuition. Charlton1 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

not bad, but remember that the italics in Anthony Eden are created using two single quotes '', and not a double quote ". Alternatively you will find an italicised I on the edit toolbar which will achieve the same thing. It's worth playing around with the icons on the toolbar to see what they do; use preview to check your results. RodCrosby (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rod Crosby - Hi - I am quite astonished to see that you regard recent publications which challenge early books about Ruth Ellis as tendentious. And I am equally surprised that your hacking of relevant information goes undisputed. Half a century after the hanging of Ruth Ellis,and now with the benefit of more published information (much taken directly from The National Archives files which were previously closed)and first hand evidence, your editing could be regarded as blatantly promoting published books that many now regard as tendentious and based on misinformation. Charlton1 (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this at length previously. I don't think we're going to agree. I find Jakubait's book tendentious in the extreme, and stuff like Ellis might have been a friend of a friend of Ward; some copper got demoted years later; some Bishop asked a foolish question, etc., even if true, has no place here. Wikipedia is not a conspiracy-theory site or a collection of unrelated trivia. What do other people think? You mention the National Archives. Of course, if there are relevant and notable facts in there, please add them, with citations, while taking care not to force them to "fit" Mrs. Jakubait's neurotic ramblings

RodCrosby (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Rod - I find your comments rude, arrogant and prejudiced.. I am still not sure how your comments, deletions and bullying tactics have stood up to scrutiny from other Wikipedia editors and have remained unchallenged.'Conspiracy theory!Mrs Jakubait's ramblings!'What gives you the right to assume that books published before Mrs Jakubait's, and to which you obviously base your own ideas,are based on fact?Your comments make a mockery of Wikipedia's role which I thought was educational and factual.Mrs Jakubait's book was based on thorough research and first-hand evidence whcih is more than can be said for previously published fairy stories. 213.122.49.196 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Balance

What is the General feeling about this articles lack of balance?

If Ruth had been tried in, France should could have walked free & even these days would only receive a short Jail term. The general consensus is that this is a lady who was dealt a bad hand by eveone she meet.

Please help --Steve Bowen (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What would/could/should have happened in france, or new guinea, or the 18th century, or on alpha centauri is absolutely irrelevant on wiki. It is conjecture straying into own research with a prospective agenda of pov. Likewise 'balance' of opinion or nastiness is not relevant to wiki, we should simply report reliable third party sources. Making it clear if multiple 'reliable' sources contradict each other. It's a sad story but it should not reflect in 'the balance' on wiki. Anybody who knows the article to be 'less than perfect' should edit boldly and add verifiable sources. Autodidactyl (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Vauxhall Vanguard

Talking of accurate reliable third party sources... The Vauxhall Vanguard never existed (probably). No amount of searching on Google will prove it. Mislabeled pictures of nameless, badge-less rusting hulks (of a Standard Vanguard) under railway arches are proof of nothing. 'The Lady Died For Love by David Cocksedge' is presumably quoting the original journalist's sloppy reporting, preferring the alliterative poetry and rhythm of 'Vauxhall Vanguard' over the 'probably' more prosaic fact of a 'Standard Vanguard' or some other Vauxhall. (Understandable really, 'Standards' are rare and slipping, Vauxhall Victor/Velox/Viva/Vectra/VX/Viceroy/Vivaro are common.) I will be rewriting the statement to reflect 'doubt over the source'. Autodidactyl (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks & I think your right, in the context of the page I don't believe it to be a major issue but it is better to link to a car that actually existed.

Possible copyvio

The trial and execution section has the look of plagiarism and/or a copyright violation to it. The source is Block, Brian P. and Hostettler, John. Hanging in the Balance, 1997, p. 165. Does anyone have this to check the text against our version? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just found that book and it's not from there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many matters of opinion

In my opinion, there are too many matters of opinion (and the word probably) on this Ruth Ellis site, which makes a mockery of the tragic story, and is misleading. I understood that Wikipedia, although open to anyone to make contributions,is based on the truth. Clearly I have misunderstood its ethos.Charlton1 (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)